About Me

I saw active service in conventional, clandestine and covert units of the South African Defence Force. I was the founder of the Private Military Company (PMC) Executive Outcomes in 1989 and its chairman until I left in 1997. Until its closure in 1998, EO operated primarily in Africa helping African governments that had been abandoned by the West and were facing threats from insurgencies, terrorism and organised crime. EO also operated in South America and the Far East. I believe that only Africans (Black and White) can truly solve Africa’s problems. I was appointed Chairman of STTEP International in 2009 and also lecture at military colleges and universities in Africa on defence, intelligence and security issues. Prior to the STTEP International appointment, I served as an independent politico-military advisor to several African governments. Until recently, I was a contributing editor to The Counter Terrorist magazine. All comments in line with the topics on this blog are welcome. As I consider this to be a serious look at military and security matters, foul language and political or religious debates will not be entertained on this blog.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

PIRACY: A POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE CRIME…?

The dramatic increase in piracy off the East African coast, in particular off the coast of Somalia – and recently the Saudi super-tanker off Kenya’s coast as well as the Chinese and Greek vessels - has led to an increase in naval activity in the area aimed at protecting vessels that may be targeted by the pirates. US and British warships, known as Task Force 150 (the international naval and air effort in the Gulf of Aden), have counter-piracy as part of their mission. But this mission is restricted in its scope as Task Force 150 has more serious matters to contend with. Some PMCs, along with a single independent Russian warship, also find themselves in this area engaged in protection and counter-piracy duties off these dangerous coasts.

It is only a matter of time before this type of crime escalates off the coasts of West and Central Africa and yields like-wise valuable pickings to this scum of the sea.

Operating with almost impunity, these pirates, joined by local criminal elements and fishermen who see the possibilities of making a quick million dollars, have been encouraged to continue with their criminal activities by the shipping companies who are only too keen to pay the large ransoms the pirates demand in order to secure the release of their vessels, crews and cargo. Whereas it is hoped that the shipping companies will do everything in their power to effect the release of their crews who man their ships - and the cargo they have been entrusted with - what about the ships? Do some shipping companies really want their ships back?

I found a bit of research into the subject somewhat disturbing. An analyst in military and intelligence affairs wrote: “In the past, piracy was suppressed by foreign navies destroying the towns of villages the pirates used as bases. This is no longer politically acceptable…”

The implication of this ludicrous statement is that it is politically unacceptable to stop piracy. Further analysis of this statement concludes that it is the political right of these seaborne criminals to act the way they do. The recent thwarting of pirates by the Royal Navy was encouraging but why is no-one willing to attack them aggressively in the harbours and villages they use as bases? Could it be that there exists an inherent fear of the Somalis who have, in the past, repulsed the poorly planned and badly led attacks against them?

The ransoms the large shipping companies are willing to pay to secure the release of their vessels and crews totals tens of millions of dollars, money that most certainly is used to further perpetuate piracy, secure weapons and ammunition, fast boats, GPS, satellite radios and so on. This in itself merely encourages the pirates. Besides, how much of this money is passed on to radical terrorist groups?

Stopping piracy, especially in waters where it is a definite danger, is really not a difficult matter. It requires a very simple strategy and the desire to implement the strategy - at a fraction of the costs that have been spent on ransoms. It does not require massive warships patrolling the area. Furthermore, the aim ought to be to prevent the ship from being taken – not to only do something once the ship has been taken.

If it is politically acceptable for pirates to operate and commit crimes at sea, then surely it is politically acceptable for shipping companies to take whatever action they deem necessary to protect their crews, cargo and ships? This action does however require a commitment to end piracy. The fight needs to be taken to the pirates instead of waiting for them to attack a ship.

But the question needs to be asked: Do the shipping companies really want to stop it or are they quite keen to pay the increased insurance premium, use old ships and hope they get taken by pirates so that the insurance can pay them out?

If that is not the case, then political correctness has legalised piracy.

30 comments:

thank you for that valuable insight! I must say that I was surprised that those Pirates were able to capture that saudi vessel.Military officials spoke of this capture as a professional commando operation. Where do pirates get the knowledge to board a ship in a professional, tactical way?

Hi Eeben,I agree with that piracy can be combatted with a fraction of the cost of what is being paid with ransom money.We here in South Africa have the same problem with Cash in Transit heist and ATM bombing.The same applies here.You need the right guys to combat this type of crime effectively with the fraction of the cost .Currently criminals are controlling -maybe atm Bombings and cash in transit is an acceptable crime as well?

See article below;Can RSA afford to get involved.?Is it not more important toprotect our own coastline etc

South African Navy Ready To Tackle Somali Pirates

Henri du Plessis

Johannesburg , October 07 2008 – The South African Navy is ready to tackle pirates off the Somali coast, but has to wait for the government to give it the green light.

It is believed that the presence of US Navy ships in Cape Town was part of a US attempt to entice the South African government to take part in anti-piracy action.

Well-placed sources said South African Navy vessels could be deployed by January if the country's political leadership decided to make the call before next year's general election.

Others, however, doubted the government's ability to make this kind of decision in the wake of recent political infighting in the ANC.

'The United Nations security council had already issued two resolutions against piracy'

Recent South African Navy training and exercises, as demanded by fleet force preparation strategies, have already been focused on combating piracy.

The visit to Cape Town by the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and the cruiser USS Monterey of the US Sixth Fleet, has placed the issue of piracy along the African coast on centre stage as senior visiting US Navy officers tipped it as one of their most serious security concerns on the continent.

And they have been at pains to stress how important South African involvement in maritime security around Africa was.

Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, commander of the US Naval Forces Europe, told a media conference aboard the Monterey in the V&A Waterfront on Monday that piracy, drug smuggling and illegal fishing were the main reasons for the US Navy's presence in African waters.

Fitzgerald pointed out that the most important maritime issue was to maintain maritime security, as 90 percent of the world's traded goods were transported by sea.

'We know where they live'

To keep sea lanes open was vital to the world economy and the sea off Somalia was a case in point, as some 20 000 merchant vessels sailed across it every year.

Shipping industry sources said these included ships carrying goods to and from South Africa , making it as much an issue for this country as it was for the nations whose ships were being attacked.

Fitzgerald said the United Nations security council had already issued two resolutions against piracy, which spelled out the steps the world body viewed could be taken to fight the scourge.

Patrols, escorts and search and seizure operations were among the steps that could be taken, but more direct action was possible, Fitzgerald said.

"We know where they live," he said, in a thinly veiled threat.

Rear Admiral Rusty Higgs, Flag Officer Fleet of the South African Navy, confirmed that the navy's new ships and submarines had been extensively prepared for such an operation and that they were ready to be deployed, pending a decision by the government.

Higgs would not be drawn on whether it would happen or when.

"Those decisions do not rest with us, but with the civil authority," he said.

Speaking at the press conference, Higgs said the navy's preparations would ensure that the service would be able to operate at the highest standards.

The deployment could involve both frigates and submarines.

Fitzgerald said the US Navy viewed co-operation with the South African Navy as essential and saw South Africa as an important ally.

This article was originally published on page 7 of Cape Argus on October 07, 2008

NS: i am not a soldier,but a soldier's friend.--James was my Buddy ( RIP)

I very much doubt that there is a lot of tactical effort in their actions. Obviously, their seamanship must be quite good but when men with weapons confront an unarmed and untrained crew, there is most certainly not going to be much resistance. I am still amazed at how simple the answer is in stopping this but one does also need to look deeper into history as to what really caused the situation to get so out of hand.

Thanks for that Tango. I however very much doubt that our navy will make much of an impact on piracy. Plus, the poor old taxpayer will be required to settle the bill of protecting shipping companies. But, you are quite correct in saying that it can be stopped at a fraction of the cost. Part of the problem is also that the leaders of these scumbags find themselves in London, Dubai and so on. Satcoms drives much of these actions.

In SA, the cash-in-transit situation is equally bad but then take a good look at the "guards" that are entrusted with the job. In my opinion, it answers everything.

Eeben I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment that Governments consider its not "politically correct" to rush into these things. Therin lies the answer as to why these Pirates have gained Carte Blanche with their activities.I had hoped better from the Russians, but notice they are also just cruising the area.People understand harsh and violent reaction to their misdeeds, until that comes about, this will increase.

I have just read an article on the tanker hi-jacking. The article says that the pirates boarded the vessel from the stern. Now, I spent most of my life at sea, and I know that no sane person is going to board a ship travelling at 14 knots from the stern. If they are in rubber ducks, as I suspect,the wake will toss them around no end. They would have boarded from the side. Also, if they are in international waters, what's to stop the owners putting a 50cal Browning on either end of the bridge? For a trivial sum of £10,000 or so, the price of 2 weapons and operators, no pirate will dare to approach.

What is the source for this political correctness towards piracy? Could national navies be worried about taking the war to the pirates because of the Geneva Convention rules about killing what might be innocent civilians in the villages used as bases by the pirates? Or is this political correctness towards pirates rooted in something else? Or maybe it's still just the plain old stupidity of western liberalism?

Gerard W. Gawalt is the manuscript specialist for early American history in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

Ruthless, unconventional foes are not new to the United States of America. More than two hundred years ago the newly established United States made its first attempt to fight an overseas battle to protect its private citizens by building an international coalition against an unconventional enemy. Then the enemies were pirates and piracy. The focus of the United States and a proposed international coalition was the Barbary Pirates of North Africa.

Pirate ships and crews from the North African states of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers (the Barbary Coast) were the scourge of the Mediterranean. Capturing merchant ships and holding their crews for ransom provided the rulers of these nations with wealth and naval power. In fact, the Roman Catholic Religious Order of Mathurins had operated from France for centuries with the special mission of collecting and disbursing funds for the relief and ransom of prisoners of Mediterranean pirates.

Before the United States obtained its independence in the American Revolution, 1775-83, American merchant ships and sailors had been protected from the ravages of the North African pirates by the naval and diplomatic power of Great Britain. British naval power and the tribute or subsidies Britain paid to the piratical states protected American vessels and crews. During the Revolution, the ships of the United States were protected by the 1778 alliance with France, which required the French nation to protect "American vessels and effects against all violence, insults, attacks, or depredations, on the part of the said Princes and States of Barbary or their subjects."

After the United States won its independence in the treaty of 1783, it had to protect its own commerce against dangers such as the Barbary pirates. As early as 1784 Congress followed the tradition of the European shipping powers and appropriated $80,000 as tribute to the Barbary states, directing its ministers in Europe, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, to begin negotiations with them. Trouble began the next year, in July 1785, when Algerians captured two American ships and the dey of Algiers held their crews of twenty-one people for a ransom of nearly $60,000.

Thomas Jefferson, United States minister to France, opposed the payment of tribute, as he later testified in words that have a particular resonance today. In his autobiography Jefferson wrote that in 1785 and 1786 he unsuccessfully "endeavored to form an association of the powers subject to habitual depredation from them. I accordingly prepared, and proposed to their ministers at Paris, for consultation with their governments, articles of a special confederation." Jefferson argued that "The object of the convention shall be to compel the piratical States to perpetual peace." Jefferson prepared a detailed plan for the interested states. "Portugal, Naples, the two Sicilies, Venice, Malta, Denmark and Sweden were favorably disposed to such an association," Jefferson remembered, but there were "apprehensions" that England and France would follow their own paths, "and so it fell through."

Paying the ransom would only lead to further demands, Jefferson argued in letters to future presidents John Adams, then America's minister to Great Britain, and James Monroe, then a member of Congress. As Jefferson wrote to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter, "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war." Paying tribute will merely invite more demands, and even if a coalition proves workable, the only solution is a strong navy that can reach the pirates, Jefferson argued in an August 18, 1786, letter to James Monroe: "The states must see the rod; perhaps it must be felt by some one of them. . . . Every national citizen must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and should fear to see it on any other element than the water. A naval force can never endanger our liberties, nor occasion bloodshed; a land force would do both." "From what I learn from the temper of my countrymen and their tenaciousness of their money," Jefferson added in a December 26, 1786, letter to the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, "it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them."

Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean. . . ."

The American show of force quickly awed Tunis and Algiers into breaking their alliance with Tripoli. The humiliating loss of the frigate Philadelphia and the capture of her captain and crew in Tripoli in 1803, criticism from his political opponents, and even opposition within his own cabinet did not deter Jefferson from his chosen course during four years of war. The aggressive action of Commodore Edward Preble (1803-4) forced Morocco out of the fight and his five bombardments of Tripoli restored some order to the Mediterranean. However, it was not until 1805, when an American fleet under Commodore John Rogers and a land force raised by an American naval agent to the Barbary powers, Captain William Eaton, threatened to capture Tripoli and install the brother of Tripoli's pasha on the throne, that a treaty brought an end to the hostilities. Negotiated by Tobias Lear, former secretary to President Washington and now consul general in Algiers, the treaty of 1805 still required the United States to pay a ransom of $60,000 for each of the sailors held by the dey of Algiers, and so it went without Senatorial consent until April 1806. Nevertheless, Jefferson was able to report in his sixth annual message to Congress in December 1806 that in addition to the successful completion of the Lewis and Clark expedition, "The states on the coast of Barbary seem generally disposed at present to respect our peace and friendship."

In fact, it was not until the second war with Algiers, in 1815, that naval victories by Commodores William Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur led to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. However, international piracy in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters declined during this time under pressure from the Euro-American nations, who no longer viewed pirate states as mere annoyances during peacetime and potential allies during war.

For anyone interested in the further pursuit of information about America's first unconventional, international war in the primary sources, the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress holds manuscript collections of many of the American participants, including Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (see the George Washington Papers), William Short, Edward Preble, Thomas Barclay, James Madison, James Simpson, James Leander Cathcart, William Bainbridge, James Barron, John Rodgers, Ralph Izard, and Albert Gallatin.

Gatvol, it is exactly the political correctness everyone aspires to that has led to many problems in the world, especially as relates to the youth and criminals. Bad deeds such as this will only be stopped by hard, aggressive, pre-emptive action.

Loggi, I think it has already started off the Nigerian coast and in the oil fields although on a much smaller scale. The current inaction by all and sundry we see off the coast of Somalia will only encourage pirates in other areas of the world. Soon, it seems, they will rule the waves unless we pull up our socks…

I think the origin lies with the human rights issue that has been taken totally out of proportion. The Geneva Convention has not prevented collateral damage in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever despite everyone wanting to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties. I think we are dealing with more than just plain simple western liberalism..I think stupidity plays a large role.

I doubt seriously that 'stupidity' lies behind the lack of response to this piracy. There's simply too much money at stake and the problem is unusually simple in terms of modern-era international affairs. By comparison, considerthe outrageous complexity of the mess in Somalia itself.

Has anyone noticed that for all the public 'noise' on this issue there has been no publicized interviews (that I have seen) with shipping company representatives in which they were asked the obvious question "Why don't you simply put security personnel on the dangerous sea legs?"

As for various military navies patrolling thousands of square miles attempting to intercept small pirate boats, what an absurd waste of money. How much cheaper to put the aforementioned security personnel on ships and let the pirates come to them. If they don't, the cost is neglible. And if they do, an example can be quickly made and again at neglible cost.

Hi Eeben, It is doubtful whether NATO will have the political will to truly tackle this problem. The AU will be keen to get involved for the sole purpose of sending more Generals to live in the lap of luxury in Addis Ababa. This will once again cost the western contributing countries billions and no amount of AU soldiers will ever successfully conclude any mission. The Russians on the other hand may just seize this opportunity to prove their military preparedness to the west. In the mean time these pirates are becoming more brazen, experienced and wealthy by the day. The millions of dollars now made from piracy will be largely spent on weaponry and this will create many new regional dilemmas and finance many years of murder, mayhem and destruction.

You raise valid points Masked Rabbit but my comment about stupidity was made in light of the comment that it is politically unacceptable to attack them. Of course, the mess in East Africa plays a major role in all of this as it allows for safe havens. Regarding navies you are also correct but that is also not their task - apart from the millions it will cost taxpayers. A few armed men, a specific protocol and the job will be done.

I agree entirely, Loggi. It can never be NATO or any other navy’s problem. As for the AU, we can forget about that entirely. The money being made is surely going to end up where you say it will. But again, as long as the shipping companies don’t take the necessary precautions, this will continue to happen

It is not that easy to get armed men onboard a vessel. As for Kenia I am able to refer to a friend of mine, who is involved in maritime Security in Mombasa.

He told me, that they have a magnificent ammount of enquiries to protect vessels with armed men. The only problem is they do not have the license to take arms with them. And the kenyan government is not willing to give it to them, because noone lifts a finger.

Good comment David. However, there is a way around all of this and for now, the shipping companies must keep up the pressure on the Kenyan authorities. Again, and as said by several of our friends on the blog, the problem can be solved and not in a complicated manner either.

Eeben,I don't know the maritime military laws at all, but do you perhaps know what would be required to arm a cargo vessel? Would armed guards need a special permit, or some sort of military/security/police background? I could understand if the vessel owners wanted to mount triple 16" cannons on the bow. Mind you, with the health and safety laws reigning in Europe, they would need a permit for a blunderbuss, and that only to stop themselves shooting each other.

Hey Eeben,Christian Science Monitor is running an piece today about who the pirates are, etc.. End of article gives ways of preventing attacks, high pressure fire hoses, barbed wire around decks. A pacifist approach. Why not give a practical solution of 20mm guns engaging gun toating small boats at 1500 meters. How can this be prevention?

Grumbleguts, I am not too sure. However, it cannot be such a problem given the rapid escalation of the crime. But, the problem is not arming the crews – in fact, I don’t think that is the solution. A small, highly-trained team with the correct weapons on-board will be the answer. The recognition protocols will be easy to formulate but some of the shipping companies are apparently concerned that their crews, if armed, might try to take over the ship. But, as long as everyone simply talks, the pirates continue to grow in confidence and arm themselves with better and better weapons.

Richard E, CSM seems to have a most unusual grasp of counter-piracy - Using a high-pressure hoses and barbed wire on the high seas to counter RPG-7s and machine guns? Now that is a stupid idea as far as I am concerned. But, I suppose that in light of the whole “political correctness” thing, the pirates will feel that their human rights are not violated. One needs to adopt an aggressive approach, and with an IFF protocol that remains unanswered/violated, firm action should be called for.

Hey Eeben,The Liberal side of the media is trying to rationalize their actions with measures that ensure no one gets hurt. The Pirates are a good-news source, they always return the ship and crew unharmed and well fed. I wonder if they refuel the ship and do PM for them before they set sail. I really appreciate your perspective on Africa and have many questions, hope they are not to annoying. It just seems that from one side of the continent to the other violent news abounds. News is money. Without being a cultural historian on Africa, I would apprediate a grounded perspective on how things always breakdown into warring parties, governments fighting militia. What government is worth supporting from who's interests. Seems like there is a continuing opportunity to address these reoccuring scenarios. The individual people in Africa should be well fed up with the killing and displacement. Thanks

Crime is crime, ER, no matter how “kind” some observers claim the pirates are. Besides, what are they going to do with the ransom monies they collect? Feed the poor? Rebuild the infrastructure? I hardly think so although there are people who seem to think that the pirates are actually “good guys” and they shouldn’t be harmed. In my opinion, this simply encourages them to continue with their actions.

Africa is a highly volatile, very complex continent where tribalism still rife. Different beliefs, traditions, cultures, languages, xenophobia, racism, ideologies, religions and so on are part of the complexities we face. Of course, there are Western interests, Eastern interests and African interests all vying for top spot. As long as these problems and a host of others remain, Africa will be at war with itself. We who live here are often surprised at what happens and we don’t have all the answers – much less those who don’t live here.

I often wonder what the rest of the world would do when similar problems flare up outside of Africa. Will they too be approached in the same manner?

Additionally, the armed forces of most African countries are highly politicised as opposed to being free from the realm of party politics. So each government makes sure that its armed forces are supportive of its policies in order to prevent coups. This in itself leads to other problems…

Thanks, ER. A very good article that gives a good insight into the problem and the lack of action by the “civilised nations”. However, the writer also makes the point of our “humaneness” towards these criminals.

Hey Eeben,Piracy seems to be a hot news topic again. There was a piece on the radio this morning on NPR about the Somali Pirates. A French war ship escorted a vessel carrying much needed relief supplies into a Somalia port controlled by the pirates. Can anyone listening to this crap see through it all? Why hijack the damn boat if they are going to off load it all and give it to you anyway? The report goes to great lengths to explaining the lack of a real government, divided country, parts out of control of any government. So, I would see it as an area controlled by pirates, since they have guns and money, dumping relief supplies into one of their ports, for them to bolster their positions, or at least bribe / sell their new cargo to the Somali people.What a mess. These are the idiots that are feeding us our information. I suspect they are not stupid, but just using information to sell a program. In order to truly change the state of affairs, anywhere, for the most part, much killing and suffering needs to take place to put things right again. The feel good crowd is more willing to just let things continue to rot rather than intervene, all the while allowing more people to die and suffer than a correction would account for. All the while feeling good about themselves and their cause.The lengths one goes to keep their funding in place. I had a raccoon, maybe fox get into my enclosure last night and kill 4 ducks. I will not sleep much tonight, but the varmint will meet a little hot lead tonight.

Too true, ER. But we continue to dither and do nothing. Even the UN wants to get involved in countering these crimes. That will most probably cause more damage than any good.

Again, some elements in the media continue to make the pirates look like good guys. It is this feeding of false information to the public that needs to be continually exposed for what it is. Also, the battle needs to be taken to the pirates – and not wait for the pirates to try their actions before stopping them. That is one of the principles of war. As long as the pirates have the initiative, they will continue to do what they do.